His helio-centric model was adopted because it was a better model, i.e., it made better predictions. In fact, it was more complicated than the geo-centric model, as he assumed circular orbits, it was (I think) only simpler once Kepler introduced elipses.met wrote:Disagree & that's what I was saying above. Sometimes new science just reinterprets old phenomena.....
Eg, the Copernican helio-centric universe merely simplified the model, no? Didn't add any new predictions.....
http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningS ... 2_sub2.htm
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/#2.1
Can you link to a web page about that? I suspect you are reading more into it than is there. Whether the rate of expansion is acceerating of not is an observation, and yes, doubt has recently been cast on that. Further, "dark energy" is an unknown. It is not a scientific explanation, but rather a placeholder for something that requires one. Most importantly, however, the reason for thinking cosmic expansion IS not accelerating after all is better data from supernovas, and certainly NOT to simplify the maths!.... & there is - for a more contemporary eg - a new hypothesis in cosmology that the rate of cosmic expansion IS NOT accelerating after all, as has been the dominant theory for the past few years ...& its strength is NOT that it predicts anything different, but that it doesn't need to assume the existence of "dark energy" like the universal acceleration theory does - which removes with a rather tenuous and difficult concept - so it simplifies things.